Every sustainability director is drowning in the same question: do we need to report under CSRD, GRI, ISSB and TCFD separately? The good news — they overlap massively. The bad news — most companies do not know how to use that overlap. This guide maps the terrain and shows you how to report once and satisfy all four.
The four frameworks — who they are and who they serve
Before comparing frameworks, understand that they were built for different audiences with different purposes. Conflating them causes unnecessary work. Each has a distinct primary audience — and that audience shapes everything about what it requires.
CSRDHard
EU mandatory regulation
Serves regulators, investors, and all stakeholders. Mandatory for ~5,000–10,000 EU companies post-Omnibus. Uses ESRS standards. Double materiality — reports on both financial risks AND impacts on people/environment.
GRIEasy
Global voluntary standard
Serves all stakeholders — communities, employees, NGOs. Used by 14,000+ organisations in 100+ countries. Impact materiality focus — what the company does to the world. The oldest and most widely used framework.
ISSBMedium
Investor-focused standard
Serves capital markets. Published IFRS S1 (general) and S2 (climate) in June 2023. Financial materiality — what sustainability issues do to the company's value. Absorbed TCFD in October 2023. Adopted by UK, Australia, Japan, Canada.
TCFDEasy
Climate risk framework (legacy)
Formally disbanded October 2023. Climate-only. Four pillars: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, Metrics & Targets. Its DNA now lives inside both ISSB S2 and ESRS E1. Still referenced by many investors and lenders.
§ Key fact
TCFD no longer exists — but its framework lives on everywhere
The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures was formally disbanded in October 2023, with monitoring responsibilities transferred to the ISSB. However, TCFD's four-pillar structure (Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, Metrics & Targets) is now embedded in both ISSB S2 and ESRS E1. If you are reporting under either, you are already reporting TCFD-aligned disclosures.
The materiality difference — the most important distinction
The frameworks differ most fundamentally on what they consider material. This single difference determines the scope of your report more than anything else. Getting this wrong means either over-reporting (costly) or under-reporting (risky).
Impact materiality (outward)
- ▸How does your company affect the world?
- ▸Environmental damage caused by your operations
- ▸Social harms or benefits your business creates
- ▸Topics material even if no financial consequence
- ▸GRI uses only this perspective
- ▸CSRD/ESRS uses both this AND financial materiality
Financial materiality (inward)
- ▸How do sustainability issues affect your company?
- ▸Climate risks to revenues, costs, assets
- ▸Regulatory risks from ESG non-compliance
- ▸Topics material only if they affect enterprise value
- ▸ISSB and TCFD use only this perspective
- ▸CSRD/ESRS uses both this AND impact materiality
CSRD's double materiality is the most expansive — it captures everything that GRI (impact) and ISSB (financial) require, plus more. A company that completes a proper CSRD double materiality assessment and reports in full has substantively met both GRI impact materiality and ISSB financial materiality requirements.
The overlap — where you only need to do things once
The overlap between frameworks is larger than most companies realise. EFRAG collaborated directly with GRI during ESRS development. The result: 80% of ESRS disclosure requirements map to existing GRI disclosures. ESRS E1 incorporates the full TCFD four-pillar structure. ESRS E1 also substantially overlaps with ISSB S2 on climate disclosures.
80%
ESRS disclosures that map to GRI
100%
TCFD pillars incorporated into ESRS E1
~70%
ESRS E1 overlap with ISSB S2 climate standard
1
Report that can satisfy all frameworks
✓ Practical tip
Already reporting under GRI? You are 80% of the way to CSRD.
If your company has been reporting under GRI Standards, you already have most of the data CSRD requires. GRI disclosures map to ESRS at approximately 80% coverage. The remaining 20% is primarily financial materiality disclosures (financial risks, scenario analysis) and XBRL digital tagging — the specifically regulatory requirements that GRI does not cover.
How to build one report that satisfies all frameworks
The most efficient approach is to build your CSRD/ESRS report as the primary document — it has the most comprehensive requirements — and then map it to GRI and ISSB as secondary outputs. Because ESRS was designed with interoperability in mind, this approach creates no duplication and requires no additional data collection for frameworks that ESRS already covers.
Build first
- ▸CSRD/ESRS compliance — your primary regulatory obligation
- ▸Double materiality assessment covering all topics
- ▸ESRS E1 climate disclosures (covers TCFD and ISSB S2)
- ▸ESRS 2 general disclosures (covers ISSB S1 governance)
- ▸All topical ESRS modules that are material
- ▸XBRL tagging for digital regulatory filing
Then map
- ▸GRI index: map each ESRS disclosure to GRI Standard
- ▸ISSB S1/S2: your ESRS 2 + E1 already covers ~70%
- ▸TCFD: covered by ESRS E1 four-pillar structure
- ▸CDP: use your ESRS E1 data for climate questionnaire
- ▸EU Taxonomy: separate exercise but shares GHG data
- ▸Investor ESG questionnaires: map to ESRS data points
Which framework applies to you?
Not every company needs every framework. Here is the decision logic — work through it in order.
ESRS E1 checklist
0/8 complete
Are you an EU company with 1,000+ employees AND €450M+ turnover? → CSRD is mandatory. Start here. Are you listed on an EU regulated market? → Check if you remain in CSRD scope post-Omnibus. Are you a non-EU company with €450M+ EU turnover? → CSRD applies from FY2028. Do you have investors or lenders in ISSB-aligned jurisdictions (UK, Australia, Japan)? → Voluntary ISSB alignment helps. Do you sell to large EU companies? → Prepare VSME-level data — they will request it for their Scope 3. Do you want to signal ESG credibility globally? → GRI reporting is the recognised global standard. Do your investors reference TCFD? → ESRS E1 already covers this — point them to your climate section. Do you complete CDP questionnaires? → Your ESRS E1 data feeds directly into CDP climate responses. The convergence trend — where this is all heading
The global direction is toward convergence. The ISSB was explicitly designed as a global baseline that national regulators build on. The EU built ESRS as ISSB-compatible plus additional requirements. GRI is being updated to maintain interoperability with both. Within five years, a single sustainability report will likely satisfy regulators, investors and stakeholders worldwide — the question is which standard becomes that global baseline.
§ Key fact
CSRD is the most comprehensive — it includes everything else
A fully compliant CSRD report, properly mapped, satisfies GRI Standards, ISSB S1 and S2, and legacy TCFD requirements simultaneously. The reverse is not true — a GRI-only report does not satisfy CSRD, and an ISSB-only report does not satisfy CSRD's impact materiality requirements. Build to CSRD. Map to everything else.
Free tool
One platform. Every framework. Zero duplication.
ESGMaster generates CSRD-aligned reports with built-in GRI mapping and ISSB S2 climate disclosure outputs. Enter your data once — get outputs for every framework your stakeholders need. Free for 6 months.